A fake split-supersymmetry model for the 126 GeV Higgs

Abstract

We consider a scenario where supersymmetry is broken at a high energy scale, out of reach of the LHC, but leaves a few fermionic states at the TeV scale. The particle content of the low-energy effective theory is similar to that of Split Supersymmetry. However, the gauginos and higgsinos are replaced by fermions carrying the same quantum numbers but having different couplings, which we call fake gauginos and fake higgsinos. We study the prediction for the light-Higgs mass in this Fake Split-SUSY Model (FSSM). We find that, in contrast to Split or High-Scale Supersymmetry, a 126 GeV Higgs boson is easily obtained even for arbitrarily high values of the supersymmetry scale M ^sub S^ . For M ^sub S^ 10^sup 8^ GeV, the Higgs mass is almost independent of the supersymmetry scale and the stop mixing parameter, while the observed value is achieved for tan [beta] between 1.3 and 1.8 depending on the gluino mass.

Published for SISSA by Springer

Received: January 10, 2014

Revised: February 28, 2014 Accepted: April 7, 2014 Published: May 23, 2014

A fake split-supersymmetry model for the 126 GeV Higgs

Karim Benakli, Luc Darm, Mark D. Goodsell and Pietro SlavichSorbonne Universits, UPMC Univ Paris 06, UMR 7589, LPTHE, F-75005, Paris, France

CNRS, UMR 7589, LPTHE, F-75005, Paris, France

E-mail: mailto:[email protected]

Web End [email protected] , mailto:[email protected]

Web End [email protected] , mailto:[email protected]

Web End [email protected] , mailto:[email protected]

Web End [email protected]

Abstract: We consider a scenario where supersymmetry is broken at a high energy scale, out of reach of the LHC, but leaves a few fermionic states at the TeV scale. The particle content of the low-energy e ective theory is similar to that of Split Supersymmetry. However, the gauginos and higgsinos are replaced by fermions carrying the same quantum numbers but having di erent couplings, which we call fake gauginos and fake higgsinos. We study the prediction for the light-Higgs mass in this Fake Split-SUSY Model (FSSM). We nd that, in contrast to Split or High-Scale Supersymmetry, a 126 GeV Higgs boson is easily obtained even for arbitrarily high values of the supersymmetry scale MS. For

MS [greaterorsimilar] 108 GeV, the Higgs mass is almost independent of the supersymmetry scale and the stop mixing parameter, while the observed value is achieved for tan between 1.3 and 1.8 depending on the gluino mass.

Keywords: Supersymmetry Phenomenology

ArXiv ePrint: 1312.5220

Open Access, c

[circlecopyrt] The Authors.

Article funded by SCOAP3. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2014)113

Web End =10.1007/JHEP05(2014)113

JHEP05(2014)113

Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 The fake split-supersymmetry model 32.1 The model at the SUSY scale 32.2 Below MS, the FSSM 52.2.1 Gauge coupling unication 72.2.2 Mass matrices 7

3 Comments on cosmology and colliders 83.1 Gravitino LSP 83.2 Stable F-gluinos 93.3 Neutralinos and dark matter 10

4 Fitting the Higgs mass 114.1 Determination of the Higgs mass in the FSSM 114.2 Results 14

5 Conclusions 16

A Two-loop RGEs for Split-SUSY masses 18

1 Introduction

The LHC experiments have completed the discovery of all of the particles predicted by the Standard Model (SM). The uncovering of the last building block, the Higgs boson [1, 2], opens the way for a more precise experimental investigation of the electroweak sector. Of particular interest is understanding the possible role of supersymmetry.

Supersymmetry (SUSY) can nd diverse motivations. From a lower-energy point of view, (i) it eases the problem of the hierarchy of the gauge-symmetry-breaking scale versus the Planck scale; (ii) it provides candidates for dark matter; (iii) it allows unication of gauge couplings and even predicts it within the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). On the other hand, supersymmetry can be motivated as an essential ingredient of the ultraviolet (UV) theory, having String Theory in mind. In the latter framework, there is no obvious reason to expect supersymmetry to be broken at a particular scale, which is usually requested to be much below the fundamental one. The original motivations of low-energy supersymmetry might then be questioned. In fact, the Split-Supersymmetry model [35] abandons (i) among the motivations of supersymmetry, while retaining (ii) and (iii). The idea of Split SUSY is to consider an MSSM content with a split spectrum.

1

JHEP05(2014)113

All scalars but the lightest Higgs are taken to be very massive, well above any energy accessible at near-future colliders, while the gauginos and the higgsinos remain light, with masses protected by an approximate R-symmetry.

It is important to emphasise that, even if supersymmetry is broken at an arbitrarily high scale MS, its presence still has implications at low energy for the Higgs mass. Indeed, in supersymmetric models the value of the Higgs quartic coupling is xed once the model content and superpotential couplings are given. This provides a boundary condition at MS for the renormalisation group (RG) evolution down to the weak scale to predict the value of the Higgs mass. As a result, in the Split-SUSY model the prediction for the light-Higgs mass can be in agreement with the measured value of about 126 GeV only for values of MS not exceeding about 109 GeV (see for example refs [6, 7]).

In this paper we consider a new scenario. In the spirit of Split SUSY, we assume that ne-tuning is responsible for the presence of a light Higgs. A rst di erence is that our UV model is not the MSSM but it is extended by additional states in the adjoint representation of the SM gauge group, as in ref. [8]. Such a eld content has been discussed in the so-called Split Extended SUSY [9, 10] (see also [11, 12] for related work), where it was assumed that the additional gaugino-like and higgsino-like states arise as partners of the SM gauge bosons under an extended supersymmetry, and di erent hierarchies between the Dirac and Majorana masses have been considered in ref. [13]. Furthermore, in related work a similar scenario to ours was recently presented in [14].

A fundamental di erence between our scenario and the usual Split SUSY or the closely related models mentioned above is that R-symmetry is strongly broken and does not protect the gauginos from obtaining masses comparable to the scalar ones [14]. In the simplest realisation presented here, in order to keep the extra states light, we endow them with charges under a new U(1)F symmetry. An N = 2 supersymmetry origin of the new states [9, 10] raises then the di culty of embedding U(1)F in an R-symmetry and will not be discussed here.

For MS lower than the MSSM GUT scale MGUT 2 [notdef] 1016 GeV, the achievement

of unication requires additional superelds which restore convergence of the three SM gauge couplings. This set of extra states can be chosen to be the ones that are required for unication of gauge couplings in Dirac gaugino unied models [15], and can safely be assumed to appear only above MS, not a ecting the discussion in this work: the properties of our model are xed at MS and, as we shall establish, any corrections that we cannot determine are tiny.

Below the supersymmetry scale MS, the eld content of the model is the same as in the usual Split SUSY, but the gauginos are replaced by very weakly coupled fermions in the adjoint representation that we call fake gauginos, and the higgsinos are replaced by weakly coupled fermion doublets that we call fake higgsinos. At the TeV scale the model looks like Split SUSY with fake gauginos and higgsinos, hence the name of Fake Split-SUSY Model (FSSM). As we will show, a remarkable consequence of the di erent couplings of the fake gauginos and higgsinos to the Higgs boson, compared to the usual gauginos and higgsinos, is that a prediction for the Higgs mass compatible with the observed value can be obtained for arbitrarily high values of MS.

2

JHEP05(2014)113

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2, we describe the eld content of the Fake Split-SUSY Model and a possible realisation using a broken additional U(1)F symmetry. The latter will be at the origin of the desired hierarchy between di erent couplings and mass parameters. We explain how the e ective eld theory of the FSSM compares with the usual Split SUSY. Section 3 briey discusses the collider and cosmological constraints. Section 4 presents the predictions of the model for the Higgs mass. The assumptions, inputs and approximations used in the computation are described in section 4.1, while numerical results are presented in section 4.2. We also provide a comparison with the cases of Split SUSY and High-Scale SUSY, showing the improvement for tting the experimental value of the Higgs mass for arbitrarily high values of the supersymmetry scale MS. Our

main results, and open questions requiring further investigation, are summarised in the conclusions. Finally, the two-loop renormalisation group equations (RGEs) for the mass parameters of Split SUSY are given in an appendix.

2 The fake split-supersymmetry model

2.1 The model at the SUSY scale

At the high SUSY scale MS, we extend the MSSM by additional chiral superelds and a U(1)F symmetry. There are three sets of additional states:1

1. Fake gauginos (henceforth, F-gauginos) are fermions [notdef] in the adjoint representation of each gauge group, which sit in a chiral multiplet having scalar component . These consist of: a singlet S = S + p2 [notdef]S + . . .; an SU(2) triplet T =

Pa Ta a/2, where Ta = T a + p2 [notdef]aT + . . . and a are the three Pauli matrices; an SU(3) octet

O =

Pa Oa a/2, where Oa = Oa + p2 [notdef]aO + . . . and a are the eight Gell-Mann matrices.

2. Higgs-like SU(2)W doublets H[prime]u and H[prime]d (henceforth, F-Higgs doublets) with fermions appearing as fake higgsinos (henceforth, F-higgsinos).

3. Two pairs of vector-like electron superelds (i.e. two pairs of superelds with charges

1 under U(1)Y ) with a supersymmetric mass MS. For MS [lessorsimilar] MGUT these elds restore the possibility of gauge coupling unication, because they equalise the shifts in the one-loop beta functions at MS of all of the gauge groups relative to the MSSM [15].

In contrast to the usual Split-SUSY case and also in contrast to the usual Dirac gaugino case we do not preserve an R-symmetry. This means that the gauginos have masses at MS, moreover the higgsino mass is not protected, thus a [notdef] term of order MS will be generated for the higgsinos.

However, we introduce an approximate U(1)F symmetry under which all the adjoint superelds and the F-Higgs elds H[prime]u and H[prime]d have the same charge. The breaking of this symmetry is determined by a small parameter " which may correspond to the expectation value of some charged eld divided by the fundamental mass scale of the theory (at which

1In the following, bold-face symbols denote superelds.

3

JHEP05(2014)113

Yukawa couplings are generated); this reasoning is familiar from avour models. We can write the superpotential of the Higgs sector of the theory schematically as

W = [notdef]0 Hu [notdef] Hd + Yu Uc Q [notdef] Hu Yd Dc Q [notdef] Hd Ye Ec L [notdef] Hd+"

[notdef][prime]d Hu [notdef] H[prime]d +

[notdef][prime]u H[prime]u [notdef] Hd + [prime]u Uc Q [notdef] H[prime]u

[prime]d Dc Q [notdef] H[prime]d

[prime]e Ec L [notdef] H[prime]d[parenrightBig]

+"

S S Hu [notdef] Hd + 2

T Hd[notdef]T Hu [parenrightBig]

+"2

[prime]Sd S Hu [notdef] H[prime]d +

[prime]Su S H[prime]u [notdef] Hd + 2

[prime]Tu Hd[notdef]T H[prime]u + 2

[prime]Td H[prime]d[notdef]T Hu[parenrightBig]

+"2

[notdef][prime][prime] H[prime]u [notdef] H[prime]d + "2 [bracketleftbigg]

1

2

, (2.1)

where we have neglected irrelevantly small terms of higher order in ". Even if chosen to vanish in the supersymmetric theory, some parameters in eq. (2.1), such as the bilinear [notdef] terms, obtain contributions when supersymmetry is broken. In order to keep track of the order of suppression, we have explicitly extracted the parametric dependence on " due to the U(1)F charges,2 such that all the mass parameters are of O(MS), and all the

dimensionless couplings are either of order one or suppressed by loop factors.

Note that the fake states can appear as partners of the MSSM gauge bosons under an extended N = 2 supersymmetry that is explicitly broken at the UV scale to N = 1. The imprint of N = 2 is the extension of the states in the gauge sector into gauge vector multiplets and Higgs hyper-multiplets which give rise to the fake gauginos and higgsinos when broken down to N = 1. The quarks and leptons of the MSSM should be identied with purely N = 1 states. The di culty of such a scenario resides in making only parts of the N = 2 multiplets charged under U(1)F . It is then tempting to identify the U(1)F as part of the original R-symmetry. We will not pursue the discussion of such possibility here.

We will now review the spectrum of states resulting from eq. (2.1). The Higgs soft terms, and thence the Higgs mass matrix, can be written as a matrix in terms of the four-vector vH (Hu, Hd , H[prime]u, H[prime] d)

1M2S Lsoft vH

MS S2 + MT Tr(TT) + MO Tr(OO)

[bracketrightbigg]

JHEP05(2014)113

0

B

B

B

@

O(1) O(1) O(") O(") O(1) O(1) O(") O(") O(") O(") O(1) O("2)

O(") O(") O("2) O(1)

1

C

C

C

A

vH. (2.2)

In the spirit of the Split-SUSY scenario, the weak scale is tuned to have its correct value, and the SM-like Higgs boson is a linear combination of the original Higgs and F-Higgs doublets:

Hu sin H + . . . , Hd cos i2 H + . . . , (2.3)

H[prime]u " H + . . . , H[prime]d " i2 H + . . . , (2.4)

where is a mixing angle and the ellipses stand for terms of higher order in ". Due to the suppression of the mixing between the eigenstates by the U(1)F symmetry, this pattern is

2We use a

dhat to denote the suppressed terms.

4

ensured. Note that, if we wanted to simplify the model, we could impose an additional unbroken symmetry under which the F-Higgs elds transform and are vector-like for example, lepton number. In this way we would remove the mixing between the Higgs and F-Higgs elds. This is unimportant in what follows, since we are only interested in the light elds that remain.

Eqs. (2.3) and (2.4) show that the SM-like Higgs boson is, to leading order in ", a linear combination of the elds Hu and Hd. Thus, the Yukawa couplings are una ected compared to the usual Split-SUSY scenario. The original higgsinos are rendered heavy, while the light fermionic eigenstates consist of[prime]u and[prime]d , with mass [notdef] of O("2MS) and

an O(") mixing with the original higgsinos.

Since we are not preserving an R-symmetry, the original gaugino degrees of freedom will obtain masses of O(MS), and we will also generate A-terms of the same order (although

there may be some hierarchy between them if supersymmetry breaking is gauge-mediated). On the other hand, since the adjoint elds transform under a (broken) U(1)F symmetry, Dirac mass terms for the gauginos and also masses for the adjoint fermions are generated by supersymmetry breaking, but they are suppressed by one and two powers of ", respectively. We can write the masses for the gauginos and the adjoint fermions [notdef] as

Lgauginos = MS

12 + O(") [notdef] + O("2)[notdef][notdef] + h.c. [bracketrightbigg]

, (2.5)

giving a gaugino/F-gaugino mass matrix

. (2.6)

This leaves a heavy eigenstate of O(MS) and a light one of O("2MS), where the light

eigenstate is to leading order [notdef] + O(") .

We will assume that the Dirac masses are generated by D-terms of similar order to the R-symmetry-violating F-terms. This means that B-type mass terms for the adjoint scalars are generated of O("2M2S) too. However, the usual supersymmetry-breaking masses for the

adjoint scalars S, T, O will not be suppressed, and therefore will be at the scale MS:

Ladjoint scalars = M2S [bracketleftbigg][notdef]

1

2 2)[bracketrightbigg]

JHEP05(2014)113

M1/2 MS

1 O(") O(") O("2)[parenrightBigg]

. (2.7)

This is straightforward to see in the case of gravity mediation, and in the case of gauge mediation we see that the triplet/octet adjoint scalars acquire these masses as the sfermions do at two loops (while in this case the singlet scalar would have a mass at an intermediate scale, but couplings to all light elds suppressed). This resolves in a very straightforward way the problem, typical of Dirac gaugino models, of having tachyonic adjoints [1618].

2.2 Below MS, the FSSM

Below the supersymmetry scale MS, we can integrate out all of the heavy states and nd that the particle content of the theory appears exactly the same as in Split SUSY: this is

5

[notdef]2 + O("2)(

1

2 2 +

why we call the scenario Fake Split SUSY. Above the electroweak scale, we have F-Binos ~B[prime], F-Winos [prime] and F-gluinos[prime] with (Majorana) masses m~B[prime] , m ~

W [prime] and m~g[prime] , respectively,

and F-higgsinos[prime]u,d with a Dirac mass [notdef].

We can also determine the e ective renormalisable couplings. The F-gauginos and F-higgsinos have their usual couplings to the gauge elds. The F-gluinos have only gauge interactions, whereas there are in principle renormalisable interactions between the Higgs, F-higgsinos and F-electroweakinos. The allowed interactions take the form

Le

[prime]a +1d ~B[prime])[prime]d . (2.8)

Since the gauge couplings of all the particles are the same as in the usual Split-SUSY case, the allowed couplings take the same form. However, the values di er greatly. The couplings in eq. (2.8) descend from the gauge current terms, given by

Lgauge current

Hu

p2(g a a2 + g[prime] Y )

H p2(2u a

[prime]a +1u ~B[prime])[prime]u

HT i2p2 (2d a

JHEP05(2014)113

u

Hd

p2(g a a2 g[prime] Y )

d

[prime]d , (2.9)

where 2, Y are the gauginos of SU(2) and hypercharge in the high-energy theory, but there are also terms of the same form from the superpotential terms "

S,T , "2

[prime]Su,d, "2

[prime]Tu,d

H[prime]u

p2 (g a a2 + g[prime] Y )

[prime]u

H[prime]d

p2 (g a a2 g[prime] Y )

involving the elds [notdef]S and [notdef]T . When we integrate out the heavy elds, we then see that in our model the couplings are doubly suppressed:

1u 1d 2u 2d "2. (2.10)

We recall that, in the usual Split-SUSY case, we would have instead2u = g sin ,2d = g cos ,1u = g[prime] sin and1d = g[prime] cos , where is the angle that rotates the Higgs doublets Hu and Hd into one light, SM-like doublet and a heavy one.

The remaining renormalisable coupling in the theory is the Higgs quartic coupling , which at tree level is determined by supersymmetry to be

= 14 g2 + g[prime]2

[parenrightbig]

cos2 2 + O("2) . (2.11)

The tree-level corrections at O("2) come from the superpotential couplings

S and

T , and

from the O(") mixing between the Higgs and F-Higgs elds. Additional O(1) contributions

to this relation could arise if the SUSY model above MS included new, substantial super-potential (or D-term) interactions involving the SM-like Higgs, but this is not the case for the model described in section 2.1. There are, however, small loop-level corrections to eq. (2.11), which we will discuss in section 4.

The O("2) corrections to the(1,2)(u,d) and couplings are not determined from the

low-energy theory and are thus unknown. However, in this study we focus on models where the set of F-gauginos and F-higgsinos lies in the TeV mass range, which corresponds to values of " of the order of

"

rTeVMS , (2.12)

6

which gives a "2 ranging between 1013 to 102 when MS goes from the highest GUT scale of 1016 GeV down to 100 TeV, the lowest scale considered here. With such values of ", we have veried that we can safely neglect the contribution of(1,2)(u,d) to the running of the Higgs quartic coupling, and that the shift in the Higgs mass due to the tree-level corrections to is less than 2 GeV for MS > 100 TeV, falling to a negligibly small amount for MS > 1000 TeV.

2.2.1 Gauge coupling unication

One of the main features of the MSSM that is preserved by the split limit is the unication of gauge couplings. At the one-loop level, the running of gauge couplings in our model is the same as in Split SUSY because the Yukawa couplings only enter at two-loop level. However, we have veried that gauge-coupling unication is maintained at two loops in our model.

2.2.2 Mass matrices

From the discussion above we can then read o the mass matrices after electroweak symmetry breaking. In the basis ( ~B[prime], [prime]0,[prime]d

0,[prime]u0) the neutralino mass matrix is 3

m~B[prime] 0 "2MZ "2MZ0 m ~

W [prime] "2MZ "2MZ "2MZ "2MZ 0 [notdef]

"2MZ "2MZ [notdef] 0

We see that there is a mixing suppressed by "2 = TeV

MS . For example, if the F-higgsino is the lightest eigenstate, it will be approximately Dirac with a splitting of the eigenvalues of order "4M2Z/[notdef] [parenleftBig]

2

MZ.

We then write the chargino mass matrix involving the[prime]+,[prime] and the charged F-gauginos [prime]+ and [prime]. The mass terms for the charginos can be expressed in the form

(v)T M[notdef][notdef] v+ + h.c. , (2.14)

where we have adopted the basis v+ = ( [prime]+,[prime]+u), v = ( [prime],[prime]d). This gives

M[notdef][notdef] =

Again we have very little mixing.

Clearly, the mixing coe cients of order "2 in the mass matrices are dependent on quantities in the high-energy theory that we cannot determine. However, because they are so small, they have essentially no bearing on the mass spectrum of the theory (although they will be relevant for the lifetimes).

3From now on, given the smallness of ", we shall not keep explicit track of the numerical coe cients in front of it, thus we will use "n as a shorthand for O("n).

7

JHEP05(2014)113

M[notdef]0 =

0

B

B

B

@

1

C

C

C

A

. (2.13)

TeV

MS

W [prime] "2MW "2MW [notdef]

!. (2.15)

m ~

3 Comments on cosmology and colliders

The signatures of Fake Split SUSY concern the phenomenology of the F-higgsinos and F-gauginos, and thus share many features with the usual Split-SUSY case. They di er quantitatively in that the lifetimes are parametrically enhanced: the decay of heavy neutralinos and the F-gluino to the lightest neutralino must all proceed either via "2-suppressed mixing terms or via sfermion interactions, and, since the F-higgsinos/gauginos only couple to sfermions via mixing, each vertex is therefore suppressed by a factor of " or "2. Hence the lifetimes are enhanced by a factor of "4 [14, 19]; in particular the F-gluino lifetime is

~g[prime] [similarequal]

6[notdef]

where on the second line we used m~g[prime] = "2MS. The constraints from colliders then depend upon whether the gluino decays inside or outside the detector; the latter will occur for

MS [greaterorsimilar] 1000 TeV. In this case, bounds can still be set because the gluino hadronises and can therefore leave tracks in the detector; the subsequent R-hadron can collect electric charge that can be detected in a tracker and/or muon chamber. The bounds on the gluino mass now reach to about 1.3 TeV [2023] with the exact bound dependent on the model of hadronisation of the gluino.

The gluino lifetime is also crucial for determining the cosmology of the model [3, 24]. In the standard Split-SUSY case, if the gluino has a lifetime above 100 seconds then it would be excluded when assuming a standard cosmology [24] due to constraints from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN). In our case, this would limit MS [lessorsimilar] 107 GeV. While the bound is no longer necessarily exact, because the relationship between the mass and lifetime is di erent in our case, it still approximately applies. If, on the other hand, the gluino decays well after the end of BBN such that it deposits very little energy at BBN times, then other constraints become relevant: it can distort the CMB spectrum and/or produce photons visible in the di use gamma-ray background. Finally, when the gluino becomes stable compared to the age of the universe, in our case corresponding to MS [greaterorsimilar] 1010 GeV, very strong constraints from heavy-isotope searches become important, as we shall briey discuss below.

3.1 Gravitino LSP

One way to attempt to allow the gluino to decay is to have a gravitino LSP. In minimally coupled supergravity, the gravitino has mass F

p3MP , where F is the order parameter of supersymmetry breaking. If supersymmetry breaking is mediated at tree level to the scalars, the supersymmetry scale could be as high as pF (we could even have some factors of if we allow for a strongly coupled SUSY-breaking sector, but that will not substantially a ect what follows) and so we could potentially have a gravitino lighter than the gluino if

MS [lessorsimilar] 5 [notdef] 1010 GeV [notdef] [parenleftBig]

8

JHEP05(2014)113

4 sec

"4 [notdef]

MS 109GeV

1 TeV m~g[prime]

5

4[notdef]

sec [notdef]

MS 107GeV

1 TeV m~g[prime]

7, (3.1)

m~g[prime]

2 TeV

1/2. (3.2)

In this case, the F-gluino can decay to a gravitino and either a gluon or quarks, potentially avoiding the above problems. However, this relies on the couplings to the goldstino; since we have added Dirac and fake-gaugino masses, these are no longer the same as in the usual Split-SUSY case, and a detailed discussion will be given elsewhere [25]. The e ective goldstino couplings are the Wilson coe cients Ci of ref. [19], and in our model we nd

Ci = "

gs

p2 , i = 1 . . . 4

C5 = "

m~g[prime]

2p2 . (3.3)

For i = 1 . . . 4 the couplings are to quarks, while the nal coupling is to gluons. We nally obtain the F-gluino width

([prime] !

+ X) [similarequal] "2

m5~g[prime]2F 2 (3.4)

and hence, for MS pF (the maximal value), m~g[prime] = "2MS, we nd the F-gluino lifetime

to be

~g[prime] [similarequal] 600 sec [notdef]

MS 106GeV

JHEP05(2014)113

5[notdef]

2 TeV m~g[prime]

6. (3.5)

Hence this cannot be useful to evade the cosmological bounds: the gravitino couplings are simply too weak.

3.2 Stable F-gluinos

For F-gluinos stable on the lifetime of the universe, in our case corresponding to MS [greaterorsimilar]

1010 GeV, remnant F-gluinos could form bound states with nuclei, which would be detectable as exotic forms of hydrogen. The relic density is very roughly approximated by

~gh2 [parenleftBig]

m~g[prime]

10 TeV

2, (3.6)

although this assumes that the annihiliations freeze out before the QCD phase transition and are thus not enhanced by non-perturbative e ects; for heavy F-gluinos this seems reasonable, but in principle the relic density could be reduced by up to three orders of magnitude. However, the constraints from heavy-isotope searches are so severe as to render this moot: the ratio of heavy isotopes to normal hydrogen X/H should be less than 1029

for masses up to 1.2 TeV [26] or less than 1020 for masses up to 10 TeV [27], whereas we nd

X

H 104 [parenleftBig]

m~g[prime]

TeV

[parenrightBig]

. (3.7)

If the F-gluino is stable, then we must either:

1. Dilute the relic abundance of F-gluinos with a late period of reheating.

2. Imagine that the reheating temperature after ination is low enough, or that there are several periods of reheating that dilute away unwanted relics before the nal one.

9

In both cases, we must ensure that gluinos are not produced during the reheating process itself, which may prove di cult to arrange: even if the late-decaying particle decays only to SM elds, if it is su ciently massive then high-energy gluons may be among the rst decay products, which could subsequently produce F-gluinos which would not be able to annihilate or decay away.

The safest solution would be for a decaying scalar to have a mass near or below twice the F-gluino mass. Then we must make sure that the decays where the products include only one F-gluino and, because of the residual R-parity, one neutralino are su ciently suppressed, assuming that the neutralino is somewhat lighter than the F-gluino. However, such processes are suppressed by a factor of "4, which should su ciently reduce the branching fraction of decays by a factor of 1020 if MS [greaterorsimilar] 1013 GeV. Such a scenario would possibly still have di culty producing su cient dilution if the universe is thermal before the nal reheating: suppose that the nal reheating occurs when the universe is at a temperature

Tdecay and reheats the universe to a temperature TR, then the dilution is of order [parenleftBig]

3 .However, if we require the universe to undergo BBN only once, then both temperatures are bounded: Tdecay > TBBN MeV, but also TR [lessorsimilar] m~g[prime] /50 to ensure that the freeze-in production of F-gluinos is not too large. Then the amount of dilution achieved is only of order 1014 for 2 TeV F-gluinos, insu cient to evade bounds from heavy-isotope searches.

We conclude that for a high MS [greaterorsimilar] 1013 the most plausible cosmological scenario is option (2) above: a nal reheating temperature TR [lessorsimilar] m~g[prime] /50 which occurs either directly at the end of ination or after at least one additional period of low-temperature entropy injection.

TR

Tdecay

3.3 Neutralinos and dark matter

Even though the F-gluino may be stable on the lifetime of the universe, the heavy neutralinos are not (although they may decay on BBN timescales in the case of extremely high MS): they can decay to the lightest neutralino and a Higgs boson via their "2-suppressed Yukawa couplings, so not involving any heavy mass scale. This suppression does however render the F-bino e ectively inert in the early universe once the heavy neutralinos have decoupled; the F-bino would be produced essentially by freeze-in from decays and annihilations of the heavier neutralinos which have usual weak-scale cross sections and so could potentially thermalise. Moreover, the charginos will still decay rapidly via unsuppressed weak interactions to their corresponding neutralino; the mass splitting between charginos and neutralinos is produced by loops with electroweak gauge bosons and is of the order of a few hundred MeV. If we imagine a modulus in scenario (2) above that reheats the universe having mass less than twice that of the F-gluino, but greater than 2m ~

W [prime] or 2[notdef], or

where m ~

W [prime] /20, [notdef]/20 < TR [lessorsimilar] m~g[prime] /50, we could potentially have a neutralino dark matter candidate, but the detailed investigation of this possibility is left for future work.

10

JHEP05(2014)113

4 Fitting the Higgs mass

4.1 Determination of the Higgs mass in the FSSM

Our procedure for the determination of the Higgs-boson mass is based on the one described in ref. [6] for the regular Split-SUSY case. We impose boundary conditions on the MS-renormalised parameters of the FSSM, some of them at the high scale MS, where we match our e ective theory with the (extended) MSSM, and some others at the low scale MZ,

where we match the e ective theory with the SM. We then use RG evolution iteratively to obtain all the e ective-theory parameters at the weak scale, where we nally compute the radiatively corrected Higgs mass. However, in this analysis we improved several aspects of the earlier calculation, by including the two-loop contributions to the boundary condition for the top Yukawa coupling, the two-loop contributions to the RG equations for the Split-SUSY parameters, as well as some two- and three-loop corrections to the Higgs-boson mass.

At the high scale MS, the boundary condition on the quartic coupling of the light, SM-like Higgs doublet is determined by supersymmetry:

(MS) = 14 [bracketleftbigg]

g22(MS) + 35 g21(MS)[bracketrightbigg]

cos2 2 + O("2) , (4.1)

where g2 and g1 are the electroweak gauge couplings of the FSSM in the SU(5) normalisation(i.e. g2 = g and g1 =

p5/3 g[prime] ), is the mixing angle entering eq. (2.3), and the additional terms of O("2), which we neglect, arise from suppressed superpotential couplings and from

the mixing of the two MSSM-like Higgs doublets with the additional F-Higgs doublets. In contrast with the Split-SUSY case, a large [notdef]0-term and A-terms are no longer forbidden by R-symmetry (as the latter is broken at the scale MS), and the threshold corrections proportional to powers of [notdef]At [notdef]0 cot [notdef]2/M2S can in principle alter the boundary condition

in eq. (4.1). For very large values of MS, the top Yukawa coupling that controls these corrections is suppressed, and their e ect on the Higgs mass is negligible. For lower values of MS, on the other hand, the e ect becomes sizable, and it can shift the Higgs mass by up to 6 GeV when MS 105 GeV [7]. This allows us to obtain the desired Higgs mass for

a lower value of tan for xed MS, or a lower MS for a given value of tan . As our main purpose in this work is to study the possibility of pushing MS to its highest values, in the following we shall take the stop-mixing parameter to be vanishing, and we will neglect all of the one-loop corrections described in refs [6, 7].

As mentioned in section 2.2, the e ective Higgs-higgsino-gaugino couplingsu,d,[prime]u and[prime]d are of O("2), and we set them to zero at the matching scale MS. The RG evolution

down to the weak scale does not generate non-zero values for those couplings, therefore, in contrast with the case of the regular Split SUSY, the F-higgsinos and F-gauginos have negligible mixing upon electroweak symmetry breaking, and they do not participate in the one-loop corrections to the Higgs-boson mass. Indeed, the electroweak F-gauginos and the F-higgsinos a ect our calculation of the Higgs mass only indirectly, through their e ect on the RG evolution and on the weak-scale boundary conditions for the electroweak gauge couplings, and we nd that the precise values of their masses have very little impact on the prediction for the Higgs mass. On the other hand, the choice of the F-gluino mass

11

JHEP05(2014)113

is more important due to its e ect on the boundary conditions for the strong and top Yukawa couplings.

To x the soft SUSY-breaking F-gaugino masses, we take as input the physical F-gluino mass M~g[prime] , and convert it to the MS parameter m~g[prime] evaluated at the scale M~g[prime] according to the one-loop relation

m~g[prime] (M~g[prime] ) =

M~g[prime]

1 + 3g

2

3

4 2

, (4.2)

where g3 is the strong gauge coupling of the FSSM. We then evolve m~g[prime] up to the scale MS, where, for simplicity4, we impose on the other two F-gaugino masses the GUT-inspired relations

m~B[prime] (MS) =

g1(MS) g3(MS)

JHEP05(2014)113

2m~g[prime] (MS) , m ~W [prime] (MS) =

g2(MS) g3(MS)

2m~g[prime] (MS) . (4.3)

We can then evolve all of the F-gaugino masses down to the weak scale. For what concerns the F-higgsino mass [notdef], we take it directly as an MS input parameter evaluated at the scale MZ.

The gauge and third-family Yukawa couplings, as well as the vacuum expectation value v of the SM-like Higgs (normalised as v 174 GeV), are extracted from the following set

of SM inputs [28, 29]: the strong gauge coupling s(MZ) = 0.1184 (in the MS scheme with ve active quarks); the electromagnetic coupling (MZ) = 1/127.944; the Z-boson mass MZ = 91.1876 GeV; the Fermi constant GF = 1.16638 [notdef] 105 GeV2; the physical

top and tau masses Mt = 173.2 [notdef] 0.9 GeV and M = 1.777 GeV; and the running bottom

mass mb(mb) = 4.18 GeV. We use the one-loop formulae given in the appendix A of ref. [6] to convert all the SM inputs into MS running parameters of the FSSM evaluated at the scale MZ. However, in view of the sensitivity of to the precise value of the top Yukawa coupling gt, we include the two-loop QCD contribution to the relation between the physical top mass Mt and its MS counterpart mt. In particular, we use:

mt(MZ) = Mt 1 + g23

(4)2 C1 +

CSM2 + C

[prime]2[parenrightBig]+ t(mt)EW , (4.4)

where g3 is computed at the scale MZ using eq. (A.1) of ref. [6], t(mt)EW denotes the terms in the one-loop top self energy that do not involve the strong interaction, and

C1 = 163 4 ln

M2t

M2Z , (4.5)

C SM2 = 2821

18 +

16

3 2 (1 + ln 4)

g43 (4)4

83 3

338

3 ln

M2t

M2Z + 22 ln2

M2t

M2Z , (4.6)

C[prime]

2 = 89

9 + 4 ln

m2~g[prime]

M2Z

13

3 + ln

m2~g[prime]

M2Z 2 ln

M2t M2Z

[parenrightBigg]

. (4.7)

4Although the patterns of neutralino and chargino masses are important for collider searches, in our model they have negligible impact on the Higgs mass and so the exact relation is not important.

12

The boundary condition for the top Yukawa coupling of the FSSM is then given by gt(MZ) = mt(MZ)/v(MZ). The two-loop SM contribution C SM2 in eq. (4.6) is from ref. [30], while to obtain the two-loop F-gluino contribution C[prime]

2 in eq. (4.7) we adapted the results of ref. [31] to the case of a heavy Majorana fermion in the adjoint representation of SU(3).

For an F-gluino mass of a few TeV, the inclusion of C[prime]

2 in the boundary condition for gt becomes crucial, as it changes the prediction for the Higgs mass by several GeV. Alternatively, one could decouple the F-gluino contribution from the RG evolution of the couplings below the scale M~g[prime] , include only the SM contributions in the boundary conditions for gt and g3 at the scale MZ, and include the non-logarithmic part of C

[prime]

2 as a threshold correction to gt at the scale M~g[prime] . We have checked that the predictions for the Higgs mass obtained with the two procedures are in very good agreement with each other.

To improve our determination of the quartic coupling at the weak scale, we use two-loop renormalisation-group equations (RGEs) to evolve the couplings of the e ective theory between the scales MS and MZ. Results for the two-loop RGEs of Split SUSY have been presented earlier in refs [7, 32, 33]. Since there are discrepancies between the existing calculations, we used the public codes SARAH [34] and PyR@TE [35] to obtain independent results for the RGEs of Split SUSY in the MS scheme. Taking into account the di erent conventions, we agree with the RGE for presented in ref. [32], and with all the RGEs for the dimensionless couplings presented in section 3.1 of ref. [33]. However, we disagree with ref. [33] in some of the RGEs for the mass parameters (our results for the latter are collected in the appendix). Concerning the RGEs for the dimensionless couplings presented in ref. [7], we nd some discrepancies 5 in two-loop terms proportional to g42 and g62.

At the end of our iterative procedure, we evolve all the parameters to a common weak scale QW , and obtain the physical squared mass for the Higgs boson as

M2H = (QW )

p2 GF [bracketleftBig]

1 1[lscript](QW )[bracketrightBig]

+ g4t v2

128 4

16 g23 (3 [lscript]2t + [lscript]t) 3 g2t [parenleftbigg]9 [lscript]2t 3 [lscript]t + 2 +23[parenrightbigg][bracketrightbigg]+ g43 g4t v264 6 ln3m2~g[prime]

Q2W , (4.8)

where [lscript]t = ln(m2t/Q2W ). The one-loop correction 1[lscript](QW ), which must be computed in terms of MS parameters, is given in eqs. (15a)(15f) of ref. [36], while the two-loop corrections proportional to g23g4t and to g6t come from ref. [37]. We have also included the leading-logarithmic correction arising from three-loop diagrams involving F-gluinos, which can become relevant for large values of m~g[prime] /QW . This last term must of course be omitted if the F-gluinos are decoupled from the RGE for below the scale M~g[prime] . In our numerical calculations we set QW = Mt to minimise the e ect of the radiative corrections involving top quarks, but we have found that our results for the physical Higgs mass are remarkably stable with respect to variations of QW .

5 In particular, in ref. [7] the coe cient of g42 in the RGEs for gt, gb, g,1u and1d should be changed from 15/4 to 17/4, while the coe cient of g42 in the RGEs for2u and2d should be changed from 121/4 to 409/12. In the RGE for , the terms proportional to g62, g42 and g42g21 should be corrected in

accordance with ref. [32]. We thank A. Strumia for conrming these corrections.

13

JHEP05(2014)113

JHEP05(2014)113

Figure 1. Higgs-mass predictions as a function of the SUSY scale MS for FSSM, High-Scale SUSY and Split SUSY. We set M~g[prime] = [notdef] = 2 TeV and tan = 1 or 40. The green-shaded region indicates a Higgs mass in the range [124, 127] GeV.

4.2 Results

We nd that, in the FSSM, the dependence of the physical Higgs mass on the SUSY scale MS di ers markedly from the cases of regular Split SUSY or High-Scale SUSY (where all superparticle masses are set to the scale MS). Figure 1 illustrates this discrepancy, showing MH as a function of MS for M~g[prime] = [notdef] = 2 TeV. The solid (black) curves represent the prediction of the FSSM, the dashed (red) ones represent the prediction of High-Scale

SUSY, and the dot-dashed (blue) ones represent the prediction of regular Split SUSY (the predictions for the latter two models were obtained with appropriate modications of the FSSM calculation described in section 4.1). For each model, the lower curves were obtained with tan = 1, resulting in the lowest possible value of MH for a given MS, while the upper curves were obtained with tan = 40.

As was shown earlier in ref. [7], the Higgs mass grows monotonically with the SUSY scale MS in the Split-SUSY case, while it reaches a plateau in High-Scale SUSY. In both cases, the prediction for the Higgs mass falls between 124 and 127 GeV only for a relatively narrow range of MS, well below the unication scale MGUT 2[notdef]1016 GeV. In the FSSM, on

the other hand, the Higgs mass reaches a maximum and then starts decreasing, remaining generally lower than in the other models. It is therefore much easier to obtain a Higgs mass close to the experimentally observed value even for large values of the SUSY scale. For example, as will be discussed later, when tan 1.5 we nd that the FSSM prediction for the

Higgs mass falls between 124 and 127 GeV for all values of MS between 108 GeV and MGUT . This new behaviour originates in the RG evolution of in the FSSM, which di ers from

14

Figure 2. Running of the Higgs quartic coupling in the FSSM and in the usual Split-SUSY case for tan = 1 and 1.5. We set MS = 2[notdef]1016 GeV and M~g

[prime] = [notdef] = 2 TeV.

the case of Split SUSY. In gure 2 we show the dependence of on the renormalisation scale Q in the two theories, imposing the boundary condition in eq. (4.1) at the scale MS = 2[notdef]1016 and setting tan to either 1 or 1.5. Even though we impose the same

boundary condition in both theories, the fact that the e ective Higgs-higgsino-gaugino couplings are zero in the FSSM induces a di erent evolution. Indeed, in Split SUSY the contributions proportional to four powers of the Higgs-higgsino-gaugino couplings enter the one-loop part of with negative sign, as do those proportional to four powers of the top Yukawa coupling, whereas the contributions proportional to four powers of the gauge couplings enter with positive sign. For MS [greaterorsimilar] 1012 GeV, the top Yukawa coupling is su ciently suppressed at the matching scale that removing the Higgs-higgsino-gaugino couplings makes positive. This prompts to decrease with decreasing Q, until the negative contribution of the top Yukawa coupling takes over and begins to increase.

Figure 2 also shows that, for values of tan su ciently close to 1, the quartic coupling can become negative during its evolution down from the scale MS, only to become positive again when Q approaches the weak scale. This points to an unstable vacuum, and a situation similar to the one described in ref. [38]. However, it was already clear from gure 1 that, for tan = 1, the FSSM prediction for the Higgs mass is too low anyway. For the values of tan large enough to induce a Higgs mass in the observed range, the theory is stable. This is illustrated in gure 3, where we show the contours of equal Higgs mass on the MS tan plane, setting M~g[prime] = [notdef] = 2 TeV. The green-shaded region corresponds to a Higgs mass in the observed range between 124 and 127 GeV, while the yellow-shaded region is where becomes negative during its evolution between MS and the weak scale, and the vacuum is unstable. It can be seen that, for MS [greaterorsimilar] 108 GeV, a Higgs mass around

15

JHEP05(2014)113

126 GeV can be comfortably obtained for either tan 1.5 or tan 0.6. The unstable

region is conned to values of tan very close to 1, and only for MS [greaterorsimilar] 1012 GeV. For lower values of MS, the top Yukawa coupling is not su ciently suppressed at the matching scale and is always negative, therefore there is no region of instability.

We investigated how our results are a ected by the experimental uncertainty on the top mass. An increase (or decrease) of 1 GeV from the central value Mt = 173.2 GeV used in gure 3 translates into an increase (or decrease) in our prediction for the Higgs mass of 12 GeV, depending on MS. For larger values of Mt, the observed value of MH is obtained for tan closer to 1, and the green regions in gure 3 approach the unstable region. The size of the unstable region is itself dependent on Mt (i.e. the region shrinks for larger Mt)

but the e ect is much less pronounced. Consequently, raising the value of the top mass may lead to instability for large MS (e.g. for MS [greaterorsimilar] 1012 GeV when M~g[prime] = 2 TeV). Considering an extreme case, for Mt = 175 GeV we would see a substantial overlap of the experimentally acceptable regions with the unstable region around MS MGUT. On the other hand, for

values of Mt lower than 173.2 GeV the green regions in gure 3 are shifted towards values of tan further away from 1, and the vacuum is always stable for the correct Higgs mass.

Finally, in gure 4 we show the contours of equal Higgs mass on the M~g[prime] tan plane, setting MS = 2[notdef]1016 GeV and [notdef] = 2 TeV. The colour code is the same as in gure 3. It

can be seen that the region where the FSSM prediction for the Higgs mass is between 124 and 127 GeV gets closer to the unstable region when the F-gluino mass increases. However, the dependence of MH on M~g[prime] is relatively mild, and only when M~g[prime] is in the multi-TeV region do the green and yellow regions in gure 4 overlap. We conclude that if we insist on enforcing exact stability and setting MS 2[notdef]1016 GeV, then obtaining a Higgs mass

compatible with the observed value constrains the gluino mass to the few-TeV region.

5 Conclusions

We have dened a model the FSSM which has the same particle content at low energies as Split SUSY, but has a substantially di erent ultraviolet completion and also low-energy phenomenology:

1. We discussed in section 2.2 that the F-gaugino and F-higgsino couplings to the Higgs are suppressed by "2.

2. The e ective operators leading to the decay of the charginos/heavier neutralinos, which are generated by integrating out the sfermions, are also suppressed, because the adjoint fermions [notdef] do not have a gauge-current coupling to the sfermions. As discussed in section 3, the lifetimes are enhanced by a factor "4. This makes the gauginos/higgsinos very long-lived; we must appeal to a non-thermal history of the universe with a low reheating temperature to avoid unwanted relics.

3. Since we no longer have an R-symmetry, the usual corrections to the Higgs quartic coupling at the SUSY scale proportional to powers of [notdef]At [notdef]0 cot [notdef]2/M2S are

in principle no longer negligible. However, as we discussed in section 4, in Split-SUSY scenarios those corrections are less important than in the MSSM, because the

16

JHEP05(2014)113

JHEP05(2014)113

Figure 3. Contour plot of the prediction for the Higgs mass on the MS tan plane, for M~g[prime] = = 2 TeV. The yellow-shaded region indicates where becomes negative during its running between MZ and

MS . The green-shaded region indicates a Higgs mass in the range [124, 127] GeV.

Figure 4. Same as gure 3 on the M~g[prime] tan plane, with MS = 2[notdef]1016 GeV and = 2 TeV.

17

evolution to the large scale MS suppresses the top Yukawa coupling that multiplies them [6, 7].

4. Finally, the main result of this paper was presented in section 4, and concerns the precision determination of the Higgs mass in this model. Its value is substantially di erent than in either High-Scale or Split SUSY; in particular we can nd 126 GeV for any SUSY scale, with a vacuum that is always stable when the F-gluino mass is not too large.

We have found that a standard-model-like Higgs boson with a mass around 126 GeV can be obtained for low values of tan . For low values of MS, the exact value of tan is subject to modication that we estimated when considering the presence of additional contributions to the quartic Higgs coupling from the unsuppressed A-terms. For larger values of MS, the latter contributions are negligible.

In supersymmetric theories, the theorem of non-renormalisation of the superpotential implies that supersymmetry cannot be broken by perturbative e ects. It is either broken at tree level or by non-perturbative e ects. The former implies that the scale of super-symmetry breaking is of the order of the fundamental (string) scale M , and unless this is

taken to lie at an intermediate energy scale [39], it predicts a heavy spectrum. In studies of low-energy supersymmetry, the use of non-perturbative e ects attracted most interest because it allows the generation of the required large hierarchy of scales through dimensional transmutation. It is then interesting to investigate the fate of the former possibility when the supersymmetry scale is pushed to higher values. For Split and High-Scale SUSY, it is di cult to justify a very high O(MGUT) SUSY scale, since in that regime they pre

dict the Higgs mass to be too high (unless one pushes to the limits of the theoretical and

experimental uncertainties, see e.g. refs [7, 40]).

Here, we have shown that the situation is di erent in the Fake Split SUSY Model. It is tempting to consider that while supersymmetry is broken at tree level in a secluded sector, the scale MS MGUT could be induced through radiative e ects [17] from the fundamental

scale MS M , where is a loop factor. We postpone the construction of explicit

realisations of this possibility for a future study.

Acknowledgments

We thank Emilian Dudas, Jose Ramon Espinosa, Mariano Quirs, Alessandro Strumia and Carlos Tamarit for useful discussions.

A Two-loop RGEs for Split-SUSY masses

In this appendix we list the two-loop RGEs for the fermion-mass parameters of Split SUSY in the MS scheme. Dening

dmx

d ln Q =

18

JHEP05(2014)113

(1)mx

162 +

(2)mx

2564 , (mx = m~g, m~B, m ~

W , [notdef]) , (A.1)

we obtained, using the public codes SARAH [34] and PyR@TE [35],

(1)m~g = 18g23m~g , (2)m~g = 228g43m~g , (A.2)

(1)m~B = (21u +21d)m~B + 41d1u[notdef] , (A.3)

(2)m~B =

1841u +41d

[parenrightbig]

7221d21u

21

821u22u +21d22d

[parenrightbig]

9421u22d +21d22u

[parenrightbig]

+51

821u +21d

[parenrightbig] [parenleftbigg]

15g21 + g22[parenrightbigg]

3221u +21d

[parenrightbig][parenleftBigg][parenleftBigg]3g2

b + 3g2t + g2

[parenrightbig][bracketrightbigg]

m~B

JHEP05(2014)113

+ 322d21d + 322u21u 62d1d2u1u[bracketrightbig]

m ~ W

245 g21 + 24g22 21u 21d 322u 322d[bracketrightbigg]

1d1u[notdef] , (A.4)

(1)m~W = 12g22 +22u +22d [parenrightbig]

m ~

W + 42d2u[notdef] , (A.5)

(2)m~W =

+

29842u +42d

[parenrightbig]

21

222d22u

7

822u21u +22d21d

[parenrightbig]

3

422u21d +22d21u

[parenrightbig]

233

3 g42 +

1822u +22d

[parenrightbig] [parenleftbigg]

5 g21 + 91g22[parenrightbigg]

3222u +22d

[parenrightbig][parenleftBigg][parenleftBigg]3g2

b + 3g2t + g2

[parenrightbig][bracketrightbigg]

m ~

W

51

+ 22u21u +22d21d 22u1u2d1d[bracketrightbig] m~B

+

245 g21 + 48g22 21u 21d 322u 322d[bracketrightbigg]

2d2u[notdef] , (A.6)

(1)[notdef] =

92g22 910g21 +3422u +3422d +1421u +1421d[parenrightbigg]

[notdef] + 32u2dm ~W +1u1dm~B ,

(A.7)

(2)[notdef] =

42116 g42 +1359400 g41 2740g21g22 15842u 15842d 1441u 1441d

+ 33

160g2121u +21d + 322u + 322d

[parenrightbig]

+ 33

32g2221u +21d + 1122d + 1122u

[parenrightbig]

9822u21u +22u21d +22d21u +22d21d

[parenrightbig]

45

422d22u 221d21u

+32d1d2u1u

3821u +21d + 322u + 322d

[parenrightbig][parenleftBigg][parenleftBigg]3g2

t + 3g2b + g2

[parenrightbig][bracketrightbigg]

[notdef]

92g22 +910g21 21u 21d[bracketrightbigg] 1u1dm~B .

(A.8)

Note added. After the appearance of our paper in preprint, the author of ref. [33] revised his calculation of the two-loop RGEs in Split SUSY. His results for the RGEs of the fermion-mass parameters are now in full agreement with ours.

Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Web End =CC-BY 4.0 ), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

19

+

872 g22 +2710g21 322u 322d[bracketrightbigg]

2u2dm ~W +

References

[1] ATLAS collaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020

Web End =Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214

Web End =arXiv:1207.7214 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1207.7214

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[2] CMS collaboration, Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021

Web End =Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7235

Web End =arXiv:1207.7235 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1207.7235

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[3] N. Arkani-Hamed and S. Dimopoulos, Supersymmetric unication without low energy supersymmetry and signatures for ne-tuning at the LHC, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2005/06/073

Web End =JHEP 06 (2005) 073 [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405159

Web End =hep-th/0405159 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-th/0405159

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[4] G.F. Giudice and A. Romanino, Split supersymmetry, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.11.048

Web End =Nucl. Phys. B 699 (2004) 65 [Erratum ibid. B 706 (2005) 65-89] [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0406088

Web End =hep-ph/0406088 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/0406088

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[5] N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G.F. Giudice and A. Romanino, Aspects of split supersymmetry, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.12.026

Web End =Nucl. Phys. B 709 (2005) 3 [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0409232

Web End =hep-ph/0409232 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/0409232

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[6] N. Bernal, A. Djouadi and P. Slavich, The MSSM with heavy scalars, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/07/016

Web End =JHEP 07 (2007) 016 [http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1496

Web End =arXiv:0705.1496 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:0705.1496

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[7] G.F. Giudice and A. Strumia, Probing High-Scale and Split Supersymmetry with Higgs Mass Measurements, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.01.001

Web End =Nucl. Phys. B 858 (2012) 63 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.6077

Web End =arXiv:1108.6077 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1108.6077

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[8] P. Fayet, MASSIVE GLUINOS, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(78)90474-4

Web End =Phys. Lett. B 78 (1978) 417 [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Phys.Lett.,B78,417

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[9] I. Antoniadis, A. Delgado, K. Benakli, M. Quirs and M. Tuckmantel, Splitting extended supersymmetry, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2006.01.010

Web End =Phys. Lett. B 634 (2006) 302 [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0507192

Web End =hep-ph/0507192 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/0507192

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[10] I. Antoniadis, K. Benakli, A. Delgado, M. Quirs and M. Tuckmantel, Split extended supersymmetry from intersecting branes, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.03.012

Web End =Nucl. Phys. B 744 (2006) 156 [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0601003

Web End =hep-th/0601003 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-th/0601003

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[11] M.S. Carena, A. Megevand, M. Quirs and C.E.M. Wagner, Electroweak baryogenesis and new TeV fermions, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.03.025

Web End =Nucl. Phys. B 716 (2005) 319 [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0410352

Web End =hep-ph/0410352 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/0410352

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[12] J. Unwin, R-symmetric High Scale Supersymmetry, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.095002

Web End =Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 095002 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.4936

Web End =arXiv:1210.4936 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1210.4936

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[13] G. Blanger, K. Benakli, M. Goodsell, C. Moura and A. Pukhov, Dark Matter with Dirac and Majorana Gaugino Masses, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2009/08/027

Web End =JCAP 08 (2009) 027 [http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1043

Web End =arXiv:0905.1043 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:0905.1043

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[14] E. Dudas, M. Goodsell, L. Heurtier and P. Tziveloglou, Flavour models with Dirac and fake gluinos, http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.2011

Web End =arXiv:1312.2011 [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1312.2011

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[15] K. Benakli, M.D. Goodsell, F. Staub and W. Porod, A constrained minimal Dirac gaugino supersymmetric standard model, in preparation.

[16] K. Benakli and M.D. Goodsell, Dirac Gauginos in General Gauge Mediation, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.03.002

Web End =Nucl. Phys. B http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.03.002

Web End =816 (2009) 185 [http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.4409

Web End =arXiv:0811.4409 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:0811.4409

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[17] K. Benakli and M.D. Goodsell, Dirac Gauginos, Gauge Mediation and Unication, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.06.018

Web End =Nucl. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.06.018

Web End =Phys. B 840 (2010) 1 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4957

Web End =arXiv:1003.4957 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1003.4957

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[18] C. Cski, J. Goodman, R. Pavesi and Y. Shirman, The mD bM Problem of Dirac Gauginos

and its Solutions, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.055005

Web End =Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 055005 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4504

Web End =arXiv:1310.4504 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1310.4504

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[19] P. Gambino, G.F. Giudice and P. Slavich, Gluino decays in split supersymmetry, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.08.011

Web End =Nucl. Phys. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.08.011

Web End =B 726 (2005) 35 [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0506214

Web End =hep-ph/0506214 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/0506214

Web End =INSPIRE ].

20

JHEP05(2014)113

[20] CMS collaboration, Search for Heavy Stable Charged Particles in pp collisions at ps = 7 TeV, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2011)024

Web End =JHEP 03 (2011) 024 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1645

Web End =arXiv:1101.1645 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1101.1645

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[21] ATLAS collaboration, Search for stable hadronising squarks and gluinos with the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2011.05.010

Web End =Phys. Lett. B 701 (2011) 1 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1984

Web End =arXiv:1103.1984 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1103.1984

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[22] CMS collaboration, Searches for long-lived charged particles in pp collisions at ps=7 and 8 TeV, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2013)122

Web End =JHEP 07 (2013) 122 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0491

Web End =arXiv:1305.0491 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1305.0491

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[23] ATLAS collaboration, Search for long-lived stopped R-hadrons decaying out-of-time with pp collisions using the ATLAS detector, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.112003

Web End =Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 112003 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6584

Web End =arXiv:1310.6584 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1310.6584

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[24] A. Arvanitaki, C. Davis, P.W. Graham, A. Pierce and J.G. Wacker, Limits on split supersymmetry from gluino cosmology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.075011

Web End =Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 075011 [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0504210

Web End =hep-ph/0504210 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/0504210

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[25] E. Dudas, M. Goodsell and P. Tziveloglou, Goldstini and Dirac gaugino masses, in preparation.

[26] T.K. Hemmick et al., A Search for Anomalously Heavy Isotopes of Low Z Nuclei, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.41.2074

Web End =Phys. Rev. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.41.2074

Web End =D 41 (1990) 2074 [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Phys.Rev.,D41,2074

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[27] P.F. Smith et al., A Search For Anomalous Hydrogen In Enriched D-2 O, Using A Time-of-ight Spectrometer, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(82)90271-1

Web End =Nucl. Phys. B 206 (1982) 333 [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Nucl.Phys.,B206,333

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[28] Particle Data Group collaboration, J. Beringer et al., Review of Particle Physics (RPP), http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.010001

Web End =Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 010001 [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Phys.Rev.,D86,010001

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[29] Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, CDF, D0 collaboration, M. Muether et al., Combination of CDF and DO results on the mass of the top quark using up to 8.7 fb1 at

the Tevatron, http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3929

Web End =arXiv:1305.3929 [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1305.3929

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[30] J. Fleischer, F. Jegerlehner, O.V. Tarasov and O.L. Veretin, Two loop QCD corrections of the massive fermion propagator, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00705-6

Web End =Nucl. Phys. B 539 (1999) 671 [Erratum ibid. B 571 (2000) 511-512] [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9803493

Web End =hep-ph/9803493 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/9803493

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[31] L.V. Avdeev and M.Y. Kalmykov, Pole masses of quarks in dimensional reduction, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00404-5

Web End =Nucl. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00404-5

Web End =Phys. B 502 (1997) 419 [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9701308

Web End =hep-ph/9701308 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/9701308

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[32] M. Binger, Higgs boson mass in split supersymmetry at two-loops, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.095001

Web End =Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.095001

Web End =095001 [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0408240

Web End =hep-ph/0408240 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/0408240

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[33] C. Tamarit, Decoupling heavy sparticles in hierarchical SUSY scenarios: Two-loop Renormalization Group equations, http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2292

Web End =arXiv:1204.2292 [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1204.2292

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[34] F. Staub, SARAH 4: A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2014.02.018

Web End =Comput. Phys. Commun. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2014.02.018

Web End =185 (2014) 1773 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.7223

Web End =arXiv:1309.7223 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1309.7223

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[35] F. Lyonnet, I. Schienbein, F. Staub and A. Wingerter, PyR@TE: Renormalization Group Equations for General Gauge Theories, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2013.12.002

Web End =Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 1130 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.7030

Web End =arXiv:1309.7030 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1309.7030

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[36] A. Sirlin and R. Zucchini, Dependence of the Quartic Coupling H(m) on M(H) and the Possible Onset of New Physics in the Higgs Sector of the Standard Model, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(86)90096-9

Web End =Nucl. Phys. B 266 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(86)90096-9

Web End =(1986) 389 [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+J+Nucl.Phys.,B266,389

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[37] G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice et al., Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2012)098

Web End =JHEP 08 (2012) 098 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6497

Web End =arXiv:1205.6497 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1205.6497

Web End =INSPIRE ].

21

JHEP05(2014)113

[38] D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P.P. Giardino, G.F. Giudice, F. Sala et al., Investigating the near-criticality of the Higgs boson, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2013)089

Web End =JHEP 12 (2013) 089 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.3536

Web End =arXiv:1307.3536 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1307.3536

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[39] K. Benakli, Phenomenology of low quantum gravity scale models, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.60.104002

Web End =Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.60.104002

Web End =104002 [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9809582

Web End =hep-ph/9809582 ] [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+hep-ph/9809582

Web End =INSPIRE ].

[40] A. Delgado, M. Garcia and M. Quirs, Electroweak and supersymmetry breaking from the Higgs discovery, http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.3235

Web End =arXiv:1312.3235 [http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+EPRINT+arXiv:1312.3235

Web End =INSPIRE ].

JHEP05(2014)113

22